Publicpolicy March 2015

publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org

9 participants
10 discussions

[Advocacy Advisors] First Visiting Weasel in Brussels
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 08 Apr '15

08 Apr '15

Hello, everybody! I am very happy to announce that Federico (user:nemo) will be our first Visiting Weasel in Brussels. He will be in Brussels in the week 13-17 April, just weeks ahead of the Legal Affairs Committee vote on the Implementation of the InfoSoc Directive Report ("Reda Report"), which is scheduled for 8 May. His job will be to concentrate mainly on Italian MEPs and round up support for PDGov and FoP, which are both part of the first draft but now under considerable attack. The first might get deleted altogether, while for the latter there is proposal to include a non-commercial restriction. Nemo has been very active so far in our advocacy efforts, working on our strategy, monitoring and contacting decision-makers in Brussels and Italy. We are already working on filling his schedule. More details on the amendment proposals and committee opinions next week in the monitoring report ;) Have a great weekend! Dimi

3 2

[Advocacy Advisors] Wikimedia EU Monitoring Report March 2015
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 31 Mar '15

31 Mar '15

Wikimedia and the EU March 2015 Report tl;dr Two of our main goals, Freedom of Panorama and Government Works in the Public Domain have been proposed in the draft report on the Implementation of the InfoSoc Directive (a.k.a. “Copyright Directive”). However a large number of the tabled amendments aim at limiting or removing the original paragraphs. This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor ToC 1. InfoSoc Implementation Draft Report Amendment Proposals Published 2. IMCO Committee Vote on Opinion for InfoSoc Implementation Report 3. Commission Hates Geo-Blocking and/or Alarm Clocks 4.NYU/HEC EU Regulatory Clinic Work on Freedom of Panorama ----------------- ----------------- #fixcopyright #DSM #FoP #PDGov 1. InfoSoc Implementation Draft Report - Amendment Proposals Published Why is this relevant? The Report on the Implementation of the Information Society Directive is an own-initiative report by the European Parliament. [1] This means that it is not legally binding, but it nonetheless tells the European Commission what reform proposals the EP expects and is likely to approve. After the rapporteur Julia Reda (Pirate Party, Greens/EFA Group, DE) proposed a draft text [2] in the Legal Affairs Committee, other MEPs are now allowed to put forward amendment proposals [3][4] before the rapporteur and her shadow rapporteurs (one from each political group) look for compromises. What happened? The presented draft report included both our core issues – Freedom of Panorama (FoP) and Government Works in the Public Domain (PDGov). Both were however fiercely attacked by many MEPs. A group of more than 23 members from the Socialists (S&D) and People’s Party (EPP) Groups, the two largest blocks, want to delete PDGov altogether. Another group of 16 members, mainly made up of EPP MEPs, want to include a “non-commercial” restriction to European Freedom of Panorama. A shout-out goes to Mr. Jean-Marie Cavada [5], French MEP and shadow rapporteur for the Liberal (ALDE) Group. Not only did he propose to include “non-commercial” in FoP, but when asked about it, his directrice de cabinet Colette Bouckaert stated that “Wikipedia is stealing from authors because we give information away for free”. Interestingly enough, Mr. Cavada does have picture of the European Parliament building in Strasbourg on his official website. [6][7] What’s next? Our two main goals right now are to get rid the FoP NC condition and to keep PDGov in the report. We are discussing the FoP NC condition primarily with the EPP group. To strengthen public domain, we will focus on the S&D. Should we succeed in getting S&D support, there is a better chance of getting the other large groups on board. We also have some traction within the S&D from their Austrian, Polish and Romanian delegations. The largest delegation is the Italian one. Federico Leva from WMIT is coming to Brussel mid-April as a first “Visiting Weasel” to help with this. Currently active Wikimedia chapters, user groups and individuals on these efforts are from Belgium, Netherlands, France, UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, Malta, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Czech Republic, Austria, Poland and Sweden (ordered by an imaginary line drawn in my head, not by merits). If you want to join, please respond on or off list. Some information unfortunately cannot be shared on a public mailing list at this point. ----------------- ----------------- #fixcopyright #DigitalSingleMarket 2. IMCO Committee Vote on Opinion for InfoSoc Implementation Report Why is this relevant? Next to the lead committee, which in this case is Legal Affairs (JURI), other EP bodies get to voice an opinion, too. In this case these are the Internal Market (IMCO), Industry (ITRE) and Culture (CULT) Committees. Their opinions aren’t binding even to JURI, but give a somewhat more global picture of what the Parliament thinks and need to be taken into account. What happened? IMCO is the first committee that voted and adopted its opinion on the copyright report. [8] An opinion in this case reads like a list of different thoughts and amendment proposals. In this case the IMCO opinion says a little bit of all. It says that authors’ rights and income are important, that users’ expectations aren’t met and that it sees the fragmented market both a necessary and as an obstacle. It also claims that re-opening the directives dealing with enforcement is a must. The opinion finally calls on the Commission to find a balanced way to solve all these contradictions. There’s really nothing too offensive in this, except for welcoming the horribly failed “Licenses 4 Europe” stakeholder dialogue. The move to cross this particular paragraph off was lost by 1 vote. What’s next? We especially note the part of the IMCO report that “urges the Commission and the Member States to promote a higher level of harmonisation and a balanced framework for exceptions and limitations that does not cause any harm to right holders, conforms with consumer expectations, fosters both creativity and innovation, and adapts to the technology advances in the digital environment;” We will point out that FoP and PDGov are the exception to copyright that don’t hurt right holders in any significant way. This makes them compatible with the IMCO opinion. ----------------- ----------------- #Ansip #Oettinger #DSM #fixcopyright 3. Commission Hates Geo-Blocking and/or Alarm Clocks Why is this relevant? The Commission is hammering away on the actual legal text on copyright reform so it is important to keep an eye on them and try to keep our demands afloat. They are expected to publish their proposal around summer this year. What happened? Both responsible Commissioners – Vice-President Ansip and Commissioner Oettinger – talked about their visions for digital reforms. While the former wants to abolish geo-blocking and literally said “I hate geo-blocking”, the latter commented that he hates his “alarm clock in the morning at five o’clock” and that we shouldn’t be so quick about getting rid of it. [9][10] Apart from that, Mr. Oettinger also reconfirmed that he continues to be a big fan of ancillary copyright, which already failed the on-road test in Germany and is about to crash other EU countries. The more visionary statement came from Mr. Ansip, who talked about harmonizing exceptions at least for libraries and disabled people and guaranteeing that text and data mining would be legal. [11] What’s next? Wikimedia had a meeting with the European Commission copyright unit last week, presenting the fourth FoP analysis we produced (see below) and trying to feel out the Commission's position. They seem to be struggling to find a coherent strategy as internal struggles have deadlocked certain parts of the proposal. The message that the Copyright Unit would look for political leadership, including from the European Parliament, was very clearly communicated. ----------------- ----------------- #FoP 4. NYU/HEC EU Regulatory Clinic Work on Freedom of Panorama Why is this relevant? While studies and analyses are often biased in Brussels, having them is fundamental to any point you want to make, if you want it to have a chance of sounding credible. Academic analyses work as door-openers and give your views extra attention. What happened? The New York University and the Haute Ecole des Commerces run a EU Regulatory Law Clinic in Brussels [12], which produced an analysis [13] of the the currently fragmented Freedom of Panorama situation in Europe. This was presented by the participants to the European Commission (Jaime Mendoza from the Copyright Unit) and the European Parliament (JURI chair Pavel Svoboda and InfoSoc rapporteur Julia Reda). The conclusion presented was that harmonising Freedom of Panorama to include commercial and derivative uses is the optimal way. Two interesting questions were raised. Jaime Mendoza asked us if we need to define the commercial use of FoP positively or it would be enough to omit the word “noncommercial” into the text. The answer given was that positively defining that any use is allowed would be the best way to go. Pavel Svoboda wondered if a chocolate model of building and its subsequent sale would and should be permitted under the FoP exception. The answer given was that not limiting FoP to 2D reproductions would be wise in light of future technological developments as 3D TV. What’s next? The finalised version of the report will be circulated among EP and the European Commission decision-makers. This should give us an excuse to contact everyone again, remind them of our issue and demonstrate the seriousness of our work. ----------------- ----------------- [1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2014/… [2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL… [3] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL… [4] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL… [5]http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28206/JEAN-MARIE_CAVADA_home.html [6]http://jeanmariecavada.eu/ [7]https://twitter.com/dimi_z/status/573415046300209152 [8] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0QRHCpjYWN2Ym95cGpNSmg3STA/view?usp=shari… [9]https://euobserver.com/digital/128194 [10] https://www.newday.mk/digital-commissioner-oettinger-against-rapid-abolitio… [11] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6c53690e-d2f1-11e4-a792-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Vy… [12]http://www.law.nyu.edu/global/globalopportunities/nyulawabroad/paris [13] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0QRHCpjYWN2LXZsR1JmSTBlTmM/view?usp=shari…

1 0

[Advocacy Advisors] Commission survey on digital education and copyright
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 27 Mar '15

27 Mar '15

Hi all, Without taking too much focus and energy off copyright reform and the current debate in the Parliament this is to let you know that the European Commission is currently conducting a survey on "Digital Education and Copyright". [1] I have received information that so far the overwhelming majority of participants have been publishers and collective management organisations. We need to step up the game and get more free knowledge and free information organisations to participate. The survey is pretty much straightforward. I filled it out keeping our Position Paper [2] in mind. The overall question is whether current copyright is helpful or a hurdle to digital education. It also asks whether current copyright guarantees high quality of educational content and thus copyrighted content is of higher quality than free licensed content. In this case more important than having multiple Wikimedia chapters saying more or less the same thing would be to actually get other like-minded organisations to participate. If you can think of likely candidates willing to spare 15-20 minutes in your networks, please share! Thank you! Dimi [1]http://surveys.ppmi.lt/s/copyright/ [2]https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Position_Paper_on_EU_Copyright

2 2

[Advocacy Advisors] Calling for reform regarding mass government surveillance
by Michelle Paulson 25 Mar '15

25 Mar '15

Hi All, I wanted to let you know that the Wikimedia Foundation will be signing on to a letter addressed to Congress, President Obama, and the NSA, among others, calling for (1) an end to the U.S. government's bulk collection under the USA PATRIOT Act <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act>; and (2) greater transparency and accountability. The letter, as well as the identities of the broad coalition of co-signers, is unfortunately embargoed until Wednesday (25 March) morning when it goes public. I will follow up with this list then with a copy of the letter, but wanted to let you know about the action we plan on taking to further voice our opposition to mass government surveillance and the chilling effect it has on Wikimedia users and projects. Thanks! -Michelle == Michelle Paulson Senior Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 mpaulson(a)wikimedia.org 415.839.6885 ext. 6608 (Office) 415.882.0495 (Fax) *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation and for legal/ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*

3 5

[Advocacy Advisors] FoP from a screenwriter's perspective
by Karl Sigfrid 25 Mar '15

25 Mar '15

Today EU Observer published an article with the title "Screenwriters call for EU rights on royalties" The text, which is not primarily about the Freedom of Panorama, ends with these two paragraphs: "In [the screenwriter] Thijm's story A'dam - E.V.A., a TV series, the cityscape of Amsterdam played an important role. He was fortunate that the Netherlands has this freedom of panorama. “It would have been a lot more difficult”, he said, to shoot the series in Brussels or Paris, where freedom of panorama has not been transposed into national law." This is a great example to bring whenever we speak about Freedom of Panorama with people who want policies in the interest of creative artists. Link to the article: https://euobserver.com/digital/128128 Best regards, Karl -- Karl Sigfrid +32 487 94 76 30 karl(a)wikimedia.be Rue du Trone 51 1000 Brussels

1 0

[Advocacy Advisors] Update on the EU reform on the Digital Single Market
by Karl Sigfrid 23 Mar '15

23 Mar '15

Information about the upcoming reform of the Digital Single Market is leaking from the European Commission, which is now working on a strategy document that they plan to release before summer. The Commission is clearly focusing on measures to promote economic growth. The information that has so far gotten out does not address the issue of copyright exceptions, but it does say a few words about other priorities of ours like open data. In the context of digitization and data-based business, the Commission views it as a problem that not more statistics and other data is in the public domain. They are also considering how to promote the further development toward open science, where a key element is the open access to publications and research data through new business models in the publishing world. This could be good news. Perhaps it's a sign that the Public Sector Information Directive may be up for review and ultimately strengthened to allow for more and easier access to publicly funded information. The Commission's ideas are at this stage quite vague. We will of course be there to help with suggestions on how to turn the ideas into concrete policy. Best regards, Karl -- Karl Sigfrid +32 487 94 76 30 karl(a)wikimedia.be Rue du Trone 51 1000 Brussels

1 0

[Advocacy Advisors] Understanding and building digital democracy
by Stevie Benton 13 Mar '15

13 Mar '15

Hello everyone, Apologies for cross posting. Wikimedia UK, along with the Open Coalition <http://open-coalition.org/> and Demos <http://www.demos.co.uk/>, are developing a project called "From ticks to clicks - understanding and building digital democracy". We have just made a proposal <https://www.newschallenge.org/challenge/elections/entries/from-ticks-to-cli…> to the Knight News Challenge and we would really appreciate your feedback and support. If you can spare just a couple of minutes please do take a look and let us know what you think. Comments on the site, rather than here, are especially appreciated! With thanks and regards, Stevie -- Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

1 0

[Advocacy Advisors] Announcement: WMF to file suit against the NSA today
by Michelle Paulson 10 Mar '15

10 Mar '15

Hi All, I’m writing to let you know that today the Wikimedia Foundation[1] is filing suit against the National Security Agency <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency>, the Department of Justice <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice>, and the U.S. Attorney General <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General>[2] in order to challenge certain mass surveillance practices carried out by the U.S. government. We believe these practices are impinging the freedom to learn, inquire, and explore on Wikimedia sites. Since the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures, we’ve heard concerns from the community about privacy on Wikipedia. This lawsuit is a step towards addressing the community's justified concerns. We believe that the surveillance methods being employed by the NSA under the authority of the FISA Amendments Act <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978…> negatively impact our users' ability and willingness to participate in our projects. Today, we fight back. An op-ed <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/opinion/stop-spying-on-wikipedia-users.ht…> by Lila and Jimmy about the lawsuit, and Wikimedia's stance on government surveillance, appeared in The New York Times this morning. Additionally, we just published a blog post <https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/10/wikimedia-v-nsa/> with more information about the suit. (The post will also up on Meta for translation). Best, Michelle Paulson Senior Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation mpaulson(a)wikimedia.org [1] We are being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union> (ACLU). Other plaintiffs include The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers <http://www.nacdl.org/>, Human Rights Watch <http://www.hrw.org/>, Amnesty International USA <http://www.amnestyusa.org/>, Pen American Center <https://www.pen.org/>, Global Fund for Women <http://www.globalfundforwomen.org/>, The Nation Magazine <http://www.thenation.com/>, The Rutherford Institute <https://www.rutherford.org/>, and Washington Office on Latin America <http://www.wola.org/>. [2] Other named defendants include: Michael Rogers <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Rogers>, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_National_Security_Agency> and Chief of the Central Security Service; Office of the Director of National Intelligence <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_National_Intelligence>; James Clapper <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Clapper>, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence; and Eric Holder <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holder>, in his official capacity as Attorney General <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General> of the United States. *NOTICE: This message may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by accident, please delete it and let us know about the mistake. As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation and for legal/ethical reasons, I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer>.*

2 1

[Advocacy Advisors] Do we have a Maltese Wikimedian?
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 06 Mar '15

06 Mar '15

Hi all, this is a somewhat odd question, but as you know we're trying to target our advocacy activities as much as possible. I would be very happy to have someone from Malta or speaking Maltese write a letter for us. Let me know if you know such a person. Thanks! Dimi

4 3

[Advocacy Advisors] Wikimedia and the EU Report - February 2015
by Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

Wikimedia and the EU February 2015 Report tl;dr There are two copyright theatres at this point - the European Parliament and the European Commission. The former is working towards the media, the latter is writing away in a cloud of mystery. Wikimedia is engaging in both on an ongoing basis. This and past reports: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_policy/Monitor ToC 1. IMCO, CULT & ITRE Committees Publish Draft Opinions on Copyright Reform 2. Wikimedia Participates in High-Level Roundtable with Commissioner Oettinger 3. #AskAnsip and #AskOettinger Twitter Events 4. Scope and Terms of Wikimedia Requested PD Contribution Study ----------------- ----------------- #fixcopyright ##DigitalSingleMarket 1. IMCO, CULT & ITRE Committees Opinions on JURI’s Draft Report on the Implementation of the InfoSoc Directive Why is this relevant? Whenever the European Parliament is working on a dossier, several committees are usually involved. In this case there are three additional committees giving their opinions on the report. These usually take the form of a list of unassorted remarks or amendment proposals that MEPs from outside the responsible committee want to float. These may or may not be accepted, but they give an idea about how Parliament’s general thoughts on a given topic. What happened? The three Committees for opinion released their draft opinions on the Report on the Implementation of the InfoSoc Directive. [1] These are: 1. José Blanco López (PT S&D) for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy [2] 2. Isabella Adinolfi (IT EFDD) for the Committee on Culture and Education [3] Catherine Stihler (UK S&D) Internal Market and Consumer Protection [4] The texts essentially lack anything very worrisome or positive, in fact they stay away from specifics as much as possible. One thing they have in common is that they’re all asking the Commission to square the circle, meaning that they are saying that we need a copyright reform that strengthens authors’ rights, is makes users’ lives easier and facilitates access to knowledge. Another thing that can be observed in the reports is that they talk about enforcement. Normally enforcement is not part of the InfoSoc Directive (it is regulated by the e-Commerce Directive instead), but the recent move by the industry in Brussels has been to demand stronger enforcement instead of engaging in actual copyright debate. What comes next? Just like the actual report, each of these opinion papers will be discussed and amended in their respective committee. They will then be sent to Julia Reda and the legal Affairs Committee for consideration. It is clear that everyone would like to be the hero of the day but no one believes to have a solution. We should put our energy into selling our demands as solutions that facilitate access to knowledge, make users’ lives easier and don’t hurt authors. As for the enforcement talk, my personal take is that this is a tactical manœuvre by industry advocates that won’t work. There seems to be very little appetite by the Commission to reopen the enforcement dossiers at this stage. We should just focus on our core proposals, underlining that we’re in favour of authors’ rights and that we (are perhaps the only ones that) rigorously apply copyright on our projects. ----------------- ----------------- #fixcopyright ##DigitalAgenda 2. Wikimedia Participates in High-Level Roundtable with Commissioner Oettinger Why is this relevant? Formally the Commission has had its round of consultations on the topic of copyright. However, individual Commissioners continue to meet with stakeholders. The type of organisations they tend to meet also reflect their political preferences. Participating in a small-scale, pre-selected roundtable demonstrates we can be one of the relevant players when it comes to the aspects of digitisation and cultural heritage in copyright. What happened? Wikimedia had managed to meet the political cabinets of President Jean-Claude Juncker and Vice-President Andrus Ansip almost immediately after they were confirmed by the Parliament. The office of Commissioner Oettinger turned out to be somewhat of a challenge. Eventually we received a meeting and were told about these “high-level” roundtable dialogues. We asked to be included - which was again a challenge - and in the end received an invitation. Lukas Mezger, vice-chair of Wikimedia Deutschland, represented us at the event and reported his experience on the WMF blog. [5] What comes next? We will follow up by sending a written version of Lukas’ statement and some additional information to the Oettinger cabinet and the copyright unit. Now that we were a personal invitee of theirs, this gives us the extra minute of attention that we must use to generate more attention. Simultaneously the European Parliament has formed an ad-hoc Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights and Copyright Reform coordinated by MEP Jean-Marie Cavada (FR ALDE). We’re trying to get invited to one of their next coming meetings. ----------------- ----------------- #AskAnsip #AskOettinger 3. #AskAnsip and #AskOettinger Twitter Events Why is this relevant? Commissioners Ansip and Oettinger are responsible for the upcoming proposal to create a European digital single market. Their participation in public discussions, whether online or offline, gives stakeholders a chance to reinforce their arguments. It's also an opportunity to get an idea about what the Commission is planning and what their priorities are. In addition, events that attract stakeholders give a good overview of who the active players are, which allows us to identify opposing views to address as well as potential allies to approach. What happened? The #AskAsip event with Commissioner Andrus Ansip had a broad focus on the digital single market. While this Twitter chat was largely taken over by interest groups with a tax-policy agenda, a number of Wikimedians contributed with questions and comments on FoP. As in many of his previous public appearances, Ansip made clear his commitment to get rid of geoblocking. Anyone in Europe should be allowed access to any European online service. Except for that, his visions were quite vague. The #AskOettinger event with Commissioner Günther Oettinger dealt specifically with copyright. Oettinger repeated Ansips call for ending geoblocking and added a few other points. For instance, he said that enforcement “is high on the agenda,” adding that “violators need to fear the stick.” On the positive side he expressed that the Commission wants to “unlock access to our rich cultural heritage.” He also stated that 28 national sets of rules are not practical and that a proposal will be indeed released mid-2015. What comes next? The EU Commission's online dialogue continues through the newly launched website Digital4EU: https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/digital4eu The web site is a channel for those who want to initiate or participate in online discussions. The site also offers an events calendar and will likely serve as a portal for anything relating to the Commission's work on related to the Digital single market. ----------------- ----------------- #PDvalue 4. Study on the Economic Value of the Public Domain in the EU Why is this relevant? As we reported back in November 2013 [6], we’ve been pushing the EU’s IPR Infringements Observatory to commission a study on the economic value of the Public Domain in the EU ever since they released a rather shameful report claiming that restroom maintenance at fast food restaurants creates IPR intensive jobs. [7] What happened? In 2014 we managed to put a “Study on the Economic Contribution of the Public Domain in the EU” in the Observatory’s work programme for 2015. Last week in Alicante, they presented the scope, concept and timeline of the report. The study will be rather small at first, done in-house and very focused. According to the scientists working there, they want to do something credible and clean at first with the possibility of expanding it later. The study will analyse the derivative value of the public domain for the film industry by analysing which films have been based on public domain elements and what part of their economic value (measured in revenues) can be attributed to PD elements. For this they will introduce a PD dummy variable. [8] The main reason for picking the film industry is the availability of information in IMDB. On a side note, the study plans to build on the work of people already on this list (shout out to James and Communia members). What comes next? We should follow the process closely and make sure we get decent results that will withhold scientific and public scrutiny. The study will be attacked even while it is written, which is not always a bad thing, as it helps to know what kind of criticism to expect. We’re already making it known that we’d like the scope of the study to be broadened in a second phase. Some interim information will be presented during the working group meetings on 15 September this year and a first draft is planned to be published on 16 February 2016. ----------------- ----------------- [1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2014/… [2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-549… [3] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fNONSGML… [4] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-549… [5]https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/03/02/free-knowledge-european-union/ [6] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-December/129015.html [7]http://keionline.org/node/1803 [8] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0QRHCpjYWN2a01zUkMwV2dydzA/view?usp=shari…

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Publicpolicy March 2015